-29

So the idea behind this is quite simple, and I have also not seen any similar solution suggested in meta(after a quick search). Succinctly, I have seen both on my answers and questions(as has anyone) that even on topics for which I consider myself an expert and follow guidelines in producing an objectively correct answer(where applicable), there still can be random downvoting with no explanation.

Clearly, reputation is a SE heuristic for expertise or competency in some area of understanding. So in my mind, a simple fix to many downvote issues would be to just force comments if user meets some lower rep bound.

Thoughts? Potential downfalls? Look forward to seeing what the rest of the users think.

Edit: Obviously different than a universal requirement.

8
  • 3
    See meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/357436/… – MEE Apr 25 '19 at 7:00
  • 3
    Practically, there's nothing stopping people from writing garbage, or something that is just random works strung together instead. Or even a comment which has nothing to do with said downvote – Journeyman Geek Apr 25 '19 at 7:14
  • 4
    And when I comment I'm linked to an existing down vote. Then I can start with the I'm not the down voter but ... useless. – rene Apr 25 '19 at 7:21
  • Probably the complete opposite is more useful. Require high reputation users whom are the only one whom downvoted to share their wisdom in a comment. They have the least to lose should it lead to a disagreement and much to offer if they believe everyone else is wrong. --- Your suggestion of 'sort of an ineffective immunity' adds work to implement something that won't be effective for people whom least need it. The vote is for what is written at the time, not for the laurels of past writings. – Rob Apr 25 '19 at 8:30
  • 3
    Potential downfall: people just downvote less, and now we've got a less accurate quality signal. I would support this if upvoters have to justify their upvotes as well. That way, we'd know who is upvoting things they shouldn't be. – fbueckert Apr 25 '19 at 13:07
  • 3
    and I have also not seen any similar solution suggested in meta(after a quick search) I find that hard to believe, considering there are over a thousand threads more or less asking for the same thing. – magisch Apr 26 '19 at 6:24
  • Reputation is more about how well you know how the community works rather than how much you may know about a certain topic. I really don't know that much about Ubuntu, but I got 15k before I stopped being active. Most of my posts were based on research rather than previous knowledge. – TheWanderer Apr 26 '19 at 20:15
  • 3
    Oh look - another suggestion that site curators should be forced to do more work to 'help' posters of bad Q/A. No. – Martin James Apr 27 '19 at 12:53
11

The system making it harder to downvote certain posts because a user with certain reputation wrote them is fundamentally incompatible with one of the core principles of Stack Exchange:

Vote for the content, not the user.

But even if it would be implemented, people would leave random text as comments, or write something that seems meaningful but immediately delete the comment.

2
  • In how far is the principle violated? – MEE Apr 25 '19 at 7:03
  • By making it harder to downvote certain posts based on user, not content... But I should have clarified that, thanks for the hint. – Glorfindel Apr 25 '19 at 7:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .